Replies to This Discussion

While in general agreement with the idea of making wearing a helmet non-mandatory for adults, I think the BN statement leaves themselves open to challenge on a couple of fronts at least. One is that we know intersections are places where cyclists get hit by cars fairly frequently, so would cyclists be expected to walk their bikes across side streets. Or be condemned to riding around in circles to keep on the footpath? Anyway, needs clarification. The other is the statement that 80% of crashes are caused by cars. Not true, most crashes are just of the falling off variety, and quite a few of those would be on substandard footpaths I imagine. (We don’t know because most never get reported and even if they were the details wouldn’t be taken adequately). I know what BN is getting at of course but opponents will be quick to jump in.

Yes, it's a compromise position. But being inline with the NT, along with keeping helmets for some types of riding makes it politically more palatable. If this proposal were to come in, it is likely that helmet use would be generally much less rigorously policed, even for those on the roads. Certainly this is the case in the NT.

Australia’s mandatory helmet laws should be relaxed with a five-year trial permitting people older than 17 to decide whether they wear a helmet when riding on footpaths and cycle paths.

Riding a bicycle on the footpath should be made legal for all people in Victoria and New South Wales so that the five-year trial can be successful. This would bring Victoria and New South Wales in line with all other states and territories.

More must be done to protect people who ride a bike on the road by reducing and eliminating a key hazard: motor vehicles.

Recommendation 3 is the one that really counts. Not holding my breath for government action.

I was listening to ABC Overnight radio during the week, and even at 1am the blow hards, whose most strenuous exercise sounded like it would have been to find the TV remote, were phoning in with their "knowledgeable" comments against this happening. The young woman who was hosting the show told of her experiences cycling in London without a helmet for 5 years and basically supported the proposal.

It seems like the change in the helmet laws will be a fight against the old adage of "when a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth".

well knock me down with a feather - the AGF come as out with a pointless attention seeking press release. Who exactly is distracting from the real issues here? Would be great if we could just get rid of MHL and start focusing on things that actually making cycling safer, like chilling out a little, realising how little it takes to be safe around cyclists, and realising its a person on the bike, not this other thing known as a cyclist.